Jump to content



Photo

Minnesota man kills two teen burglars

little falls thanksgiving break-in felony cold-blooded murder

  • Please log in to reply
93 replies to this topic

#31 Nogib

Nogib

    Neowinian

  • 585 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 03

Posted 30 November 2012 - 23:15

So basically what you're saying is because he missed the kill on the first shot he's now the bad guy and the "injured and gasping" criminal is now vindicated.


Don't try to rationalize with the zealots who blindly defend criminals. Just not worth it.


#32 SierraSonic

SierraSonic

    SierraSonic

  • 1,025 posts
  • Joined: 28-September 04
  • Location: Chicago
  • OS: Windows 8.1

Posted 30 November 2012 - 23:16

Beyond self defense? Of course.

The right action to take from what I read? Possibly.

Though at the time there is no way to know how threatening a person is, WHILE THEY ARE INSIDE YOUR HOUSE, you should always be allowed to assume the worst. Why is it that people who break into other peoples homes they can get special protection and even get the home owner in trouble for having "a house that's to dangerous to steal from"?

Now the fact that this guy took already down intruders and ended their life... a reduced murder charge based on self defense and a crappy situation. No do not take into account what the children were like, its irrelevant, the shooter has no way to know if the intruders are nice or not, but he does know they are not supposed to be there, which at that point in time makes them bad, in every sense of the word.

#33 +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • 26,283 posts
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 30 November 2012 - 23:41

On the plus side, I bet the rest of the teenagers in that town will now think twice about breaking into someones house.

#34 Ph1b3r0pt1c

Ph1b3r0pt1c

    Neowinian

  • 428 posts
  • Joined: 10-September 12
  • Location: Sebree, Kentucky
  • OS: Debian, Windows 7, Server 2012

Posted 30 November 2012 - 23:49

Look at that picture, he killed the girl too??.. What a raving lunatic to think she'd be any threat. He deserves to be behind bars for life. Just sickening.


Yeah, because cute girls NEVER do anything wrong. They both got what they deserved, even if it DID go a bit to far. Any other country such as china, russia, or anywhere in the middle east they would have been beheaded or shot in front of people.

#35 Yusuf M.

Yusuf M.

  • 21,351 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 04
  • Location: Toronto, ON
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: OnePlus One 64GB

Posted 30 November 2012 - 23:50

Which is a crock of bull****. "Reasonable force". GTFO. If someone enters your home to rob you they should get killed off with no nonsense.

A couple of scumbags visit this misfortune on a guy just sitting in his home and apparently he's now the bad guy. Who brought you up? Because clearly they didn't teach you common sense or morality.

No, it isn't. You seriously need help if you think it's okay to murder someone when they're no longer a threat. Reasonable force is the amount of force necessary to protect yourself or your property. This includes killing someone but it doesn't mean you have to do that. If the aggressor is no longer a threat, you're not allowed to kill them. It's ironic that you mention common sense and morality when what you said is completely void of sound judgment and virtuous conduct.

Also, "Location: Ontario, Canada" :/

So basically what you're saying is because he missed the kill on the first shot he's now the bad guy and the "injured and gasping" criminal is now vindicated.

Where do you stand? Do nothing? Only allowed one shot? Shouldn't use a gun at all?

It's not about killing the intruder. It's about stopping them so you can protect yourself or your property. And it's possible to do that without killing someone.

Don't try to rationalize with the zealots who blindly defend criminals. Just not worth it.

Says the person who "blindly defended" a man that executed two people and had second-degree murder charges filed against him.

As for your earlier post: "You break into someone's home, you flat out deserve whatever happens to you. Good riddance to those worthless kids."

Does that "whatever happens to you" part include torture? Does it include being skinned alive? Or chopped limb from limb? I'd love to get an answer from you. I'll finish off by saying this: You can't rationalize coldblooded murder.

#36 Ph1b3r0pt1c

Ph1b3r0pt1c

    Neowinian

  • 428 posts
  • Joined: 10-September 12
  • Location: Sebree, Kentucky
  • OS: Debian, Windows 7, Server 2012

Posted 30 November 2012 - 23:53

You Sir are messed up. Breaking in does not give the homeowner an open license to kill you, breaking in the homeowner an open license to use REASONABLE FORCE to defend themselves. Reasonable Force means that they are allowed to SHOOT you, or SHOOT TO KILL you, up to the point where they are no longer in a position of having to defend themselves anymore.

If they are still alive, you don't get a "second shot" to kill them (You are allowed to defend yourself, and executions does not fit under defence), you call an ambulance to attempt to save them (even if you think it will be futile or they will die a slow painful death while waiting) and the criminal justice system takes over

Basically when you are shooting to kill them, the aim is to kill them so that they can't harm you, the aim is not to kill them as a way of giving them your own justice.


Well, if someone decides to break into my house, and I notice they are there, I DO have a license to kill them, contrary to what you believe. He should have just kept his mouth shut. As the sheriff that gave me my CDWL permit class, "The only word the cops should get is yours." I stand 110% behind him, and I am glad they are dead. 2 less degenerates in the world harming other people.

#37 Damien

Damien

    d(^-^)b

  • 368 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 10
  • Location: TT
  • OS: Razer Blade 14" & Win 8.1
  • Phone: Artic Blue S4 Mini

Posted 30 November 2012 - 23:53

Intruders? Shot. Wounded, down and posing no threat? Call the authorities, don't finish them off. Yes, they are criminals and at the point of time he may have felt like dealing with the situation as he saw fit. But the bottom line is: Defend yourself and your own, but leave the fate of the criminals to the law. I can't condone him murdering anyone, not even those teenage criminals.

#38 Ph1b3r0pt1c

Ph1b3r0pt1c

    Neowinian

  • 428 posts
  • Joined: 10-September 12
  • Location: Sebree, Kentucky
  • OS: Debian, Windows 7, Server 2012

Posted 30 November 2012 - 23:55

No, it isn't. You seriously need help if you think it's okay to murder someone when they're no longer a threat. Reasonable force is the amount of force necessary to protect yourself or your property. This includes killing someone but it doesn't mean you have to do that. If the aggressor is no longer a threat, you're not allowed to kill them. It's ironic that you mention common sense and morality when what you said is completely void of sound judgment and virtuous conduct.

Also, "Location: Ontario, Canada" :/


It's not about killing the intruder. It's about stopping them so you can protect yourself or your property. And it's possible to do that without killing someone.


Says the person who "blindly defended" a man that executed two people and had second-degree murder charges filed against him.

As for your earlier post: "You break into someone's home, you flat out deserve whatever happens to you. Good riddance to those worthless kids."

Does that "whatever happens to you" part include torture? Does it include being skinned alive? Or chopped limb from limb? I'd love to get an answer from you. I'll finish off by saying this: You can't rationalize coldblooded murder.


I will answer it for him, YES IT DOES. YOU decide to pretty much do wtf you feel like doing to someone else, YOU should be able to take whatever punishment is handed to you, be it being tortured or cut limb from limb. Your ****ing rights ended when you decided to try to harm or STEAL something from someone else.

#39 Marshall

Marshall

    ▇ ▂ ▃ ▁ ▁ ▅

  • 12,629 posts
  • Joined: 22-June 03
  • Location: USA

Posted 30 November 2012 - 23:56

No, it isn't. You seriously need help if you think it's okay to murder someone when they're no longer a threat. Reasonable force is the amount of force necessary to protect yourself or your property. This includes killing someone but it doesn't mean you have to do that. If the aggressor is no longer a threat, you're not allowed to kill them. It's ironic that you mention common sense and morality when what you said is completely void of sound judgment and virtuous conduct.

Also, "Location: Ontario, Canada" :/


It's not about killing the intruder. It's about stopping them so you can protect yourself or your property. And it's possible to do that without killing someone.


Says the person who "blindly defended" a man that executed two people and had second-degree murder charges filed against him.

As for your earlier post: "You break into someone's home, you flat out deserve whatever happens to you. Good riddance to those worthless kids."

Does that "whatever happens to you" part include torture? Does it include being skinned alive? Or chopped limb from limb? I'd love to get an answer from you. I'll finish off by saying this: You can't rationalize coldblooded murder.


+1

I was going to chime in, but you basically summed up what I was going to say. Nicely put.

#40 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • 5,936 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 30 November 2012 - 23:57

So basically what you're saying is because he missed the kill on the first shot he's now the bad guy and the "injured and gasping" criminal is now vindicated.

Where do you stand? Do nothing? Only allowed one shot? Shouldn't use a gun at all?


The idea of self defence is just what it implies... That you defend yourself. Placing a gun under someone's chin and finishing them off when they're already injured and no longer a threat is not self defence, it's an act of callous murder.

#41 Yusuf M.

Yusuf M.

  • 21,351 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 04
  • Location: Toronto, ON
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: OnePlus One 64GB

Posted 01 December 2012 - 00:00

I will answer it for him, YES IT DOES. YOU decide to pretty much do wtf you feel like doing to someone else, YOU should be able to take whatever punishment is handed to you, be it being tortured or cut limb from limb. Your ****ing rights ended when you decided to try to harm or STEAL something from someone else.

No, you don't. Self defence isn't a free pass for murder or torture. Self defence is using reasonable force to defend yourself or your property. If you hacked off someone's limbs while they attacked you and they're disabled (e.g. no longer a threat), then you don't have the right to end their life. I don't know what kind of delusion you're suffering from but in the real world, doing something like that is against the law.

#42 Deleted Bye

Deleted Bye

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,781 posts
  • Joined: 17-June 09

Posted 01 December 2012 - 00:07

I will answer it for him, YES IT DOES. YOU decide to pretty much do wtf you feel like doing to someone else, YOU should be able to take whatever punishment is handed to you, be it being tortured or cut limb from limb. Your ****ing rights ended when you decided to try to harm or STEAL something from someone else.

your words are hurting/harming me, i guess i get to kill you now. ty, its all subject to interpretation now right? who's to say you aren't harming me with your words? that's right baby, I DO! :)

#43 srbeen

srbeen

    Neowinian

  • 1,014 posts
  • Joined: 30-November 11

Posted 01 December 2012 - 00:07

Thought the US could bare arms? whatever.. I guess the US should make up your mind on which laws are imposed. If you can bare arms you should expect death when you do stupid stuff like that.

#44 Javik

Javik

    Beware the tyrrany of those that wield power

  • 5,936 posts
  • Joined: 21-May 12

Posted 01 December 2012 - 00:15

The constitution guarantees the right to bare arms, but it never guaranteed the right to use them to murder people.

#45 DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 17,505 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 01 December 2012 - 00:44

The second shots on downed baddies are what cause the controversy. IF they still had weapons in their hand then they're still fair game. If not, then it's an unjustified homicide.

Lesson: take 'em down for the big sleep with the first shot.